Hart v. Miller4/19/2000
ntly addressed qualified immunity of a law enforcement officer under § 1983 claims, and the applicability of summary judgment to this type of case. In Horne, we stated:
Qualified immunity is a legal question to be decided by the court; thus, it is particularly amenable to summary judgment. Hunter v. Bryant, 502 US 224, 227, 112 SCt 534, 536, 116 LEd2d 589, 595 (1991)(per curiam). The Supreme Court has emphasized that "because ' he entitlement is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability,' Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 US 511, 526[, 105 SCt 2806, 2815, 86 LEd2d 411] (1985), we repeatedly have stressed the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in litigation." Id. To find whether qualified immunity applies, the test is to ask if the officer's conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights a reasonable officer would have known at the time. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 US 800, 818, 102 SCt 2727, 2738, 73 LEd2d 396, 410 (1982); see also Anderson v. Creighton, 483 US 635, 639, 107 SCt 3034, 3038, 97 LEd2d 523, 530 (1987); Gainor v. Rogers, 973 F2d 1379, 1382 (8thCir 1992). This "objective legal reasonableness" standard means " he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right." Anderson, 483 US at 640, 107 SCt at 3039, 97 LEd2d at 531; Hafner v. Delano, 520 NW2d 587, 591 (SD 1994). Qualified immunity is a personal defense. Hafner, 520 NW2d at 591. See Hafer v. Melo, 502 US 21, 112 SCt 358, 116 LEd2d 301 (1991). 1997 SD 65, , 565 NW2d at 52-53.
[ ] This Court has also recently stated:
hether an official protected by qualified immunity may be held personally liable for an allegedly unlawful official action generally turns on the "objective legal reasonableness" of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time it was taken.
ur cases establish that the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been "clearly established" in [the following] sense: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. This is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held unlawful, but it is to say that in light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be apparent. (citations omitted). Spenner v. City of Sioux Falls, 1998 SD 56, , 580 NW2d 606, 612 (quoting Anderson, 483 US at 640, 107 SCt at 3039, 97 LEd2d at 530-31). See also Gainor, 973 F2d at 1382 ("This [qualified immunity analysis] allows ample room for a good faith mistake by the officer since his conduct must be measured in terms of the belief of a reasonable officer based upon the facts then available to the officer").
[ ] Were these all the facts of this case, there would be immunity for Miller, as his investigatory techniques, while perhaps not a model of timing and tact, were within the good faith mistake protection offered by qualified immunity. He clearly had probable cause to investigate the matter. However his ambiguous question, "what were they going to do about [the marijuana]" must be examined in light of his prior conduct. The following are from affidavits and in one instance another lawsuit involving Miller, all of which were considered by the trial court in this case.
[ ] K.K. () testified that in 1986 when she was 15, she was in a car that was stopped by Miller. Miller found a can of beer in K.K.'s possession. K.K. testified Miller ordered the other occupants of the vehicle to leave the area and removed K.K. to
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 South Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|